[at-l] Racism on or around the AT

[icw39@ncfreedom.net (Clark Wright)]

"I do wonder how he lived with himself afterwards."  . . . The answer to
that one is simple - he drank himself to death! 

My armchair opinion about the entire war would extend the Vietnam
analogy this way:  If Lee had been a bit less aggressive (sometimes
winning early on is a bad thing in hindsight), and had forced the North
to come to him and wage a war of attrition further down south, it could
have turned into a 15+ year Vietnam-type war of horrible attrition.  In
real big picture hindsight, I reckon I am "glad" (what a terrible choice
of words) that "we" lost that particular war . . . I would offer one,
final point that I think has gotten WAY too little historical attention,
but was brought back to the surface a bit by the Bush/Gore electoral
stalemate . . . I believe history shows us that the deal cut to end the
electoral statemate right before the turn of the 19th century into the
20th century did more damage to democracy and race relations in the
south than anything up to and including the Civil War did . . .
essentially the southern democrats got a promise that the North would
end reconstruction efforts and look the other way as many in the south
took out their vengenance on the newly emancipated blacks . . . there is
a little paperback book written by a quiet, amazing history professor
(at Duke, of all places!) that covers just one small slice of this
history relative to my home state of NC; it is entitled "Democracy
Betrayed, The Wilmington Race Riot of 1898 and its Legacy"  I've not
finished it yet, but already know it is one of those historical gems
that takes one, small slice of history and touches chords that
reverberate around us all, over many generations . . . 

thinking on!

thru-thinker

Jim and/or Ginny Owen wrote:
> 
> t. wrote:
> >yes, but, that WAS the main reason in this case.   The south definitely had
> >the "will" to win.  Heck, there are still some people down here that
> >haven't given up the fight.  It was a matter of lack of men (for the
> >tactics of the era)  & supplies.    and, a few stupid generals, like
> >Pickett at Gettysburg for instance.
> 
> Tom -
> I think it was still a matter of "will to win"  --- think "Grant".  He was
> willing to grind entire armies into dust if that's what it took to decimate
> Lee's ability to fight.  The collective "will to win" of the entire South
> was overwhelmed by one man's "will to win" - and his willingness to
> sacrifice the lives of tens (or hundreds) of thousands of men in order to
> make it happen.  I respect Grant - but I don't admire him.  I do wonder how
> he lived with himself afterwards.
> 
> The AT might have been a moot point if the South had won - but I think it
> more likely that it would have eventually been a cooperative cross-border
> project.  Like the IAT.
> 
> Walk softly,
> Jim
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> http://www.hotmail.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AT-L mailing list
> AT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l